Claims 1 and 4-13 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method of laundering fabrics wherein”. The
“wherein” is a transitional phrase such as “comprising of ” or “consisting of ” and wherein and whereby clauses may raise questions as to the limiting effect of the language in the claim. So it is unclear if the method step is open or closed (see MPEP 2111.04). Clarification and/or Correction are/is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to the wash stage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites two laundry particles “laundry particles comprising a. cellulose enzyme and b. carrier material” and laundry particles comprises perfume ingredients”. It is unclear as written if they are the same or separate laundry particles. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “cellulose enzyme” and then 0.00005 to 1.5 wt% cellulase”. It is unclear if there are the same or different?. Clarification and/or correction are/is required
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “anionic surfactant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite anionic surfactant. Correction is required.
The examiner suggests the amendment of claim 6 by inserting the word “further” before the word “comprise” in line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lausten et al. (WO 0174980 A2) in view of Uchiyama et al. (NZ 230842 A).
Lausten et al. (WO’ 980 A2) teaches an enzyme containing cleaning particles (see abstract), wherein the particles may be suitably be added to wash water alone or in a combination with a conventional detergent and wherein the particles comprise liquid agents (carrier material), perfume and at least 0.05% by wt., enzyme (see page 9, lines 24-29), wherein the enzyme may be cellulase (see claim 5) and wherein the particles can be added to the wash water alone or in combination with a conventional detergent to obtain an increased cleaning performance (see page 23, line 18-23), wherein the laundry particle having a size of a lower limit of 10.5 mm which is closer to the claimed limit 10 mm as claimed in claim 10 (see claim 2)and wherein the liquid agents (carrier material) include ethoxylated fatty alcohols (ethoxylated non-ionic surfactants) as claimed in claim 4 (see page 11, lines 11-12), wherein the particles comprises less than 10% by wt., of anionic surfactants as claimed in claim 6 (see page 21, lines 12-14),
The concentration of cellulase taught by Lausten et al. (WO’ 980 A2) is broader than the instant claims.
Uchiyama et al. (NZ’ 842 A) in analogous art of particulate detergent formulation, teaches a detergent composition having a significally improved cleaning action against hard to remove soils in laundry fibers containing 0.2 to 1% wt., of cellulase (see claim 1).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Uchiyama et al. (NZ’ 842 A), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the amount of cellulase in Lausten et al. (WO’ 980 A2) to 0.2 to 2% as taught by Uchiyama et al. (NZ’ 842 A) in order to have an enhanced cleaning properties during the wash cycle, absent unexpected results.
Regarding the formation of “the wash liquor” whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended results of a process step positively recited (see MPEP 2111.04). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the cellulase of the particle to be diluted to lower concentration, absent unexpected results.
5 Claims 5, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lausten et al. (WO 0174980 A2) in view of Lant et al. (US 20170321162 A1).
The disclosure of Lausten et al. (WO’ 980 A2) as described above, does not teach detersive surfactants in the claimed amounts.
Lant et al. (US’ 162 A1) in analogous art of laundry detergent formulation, teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition as claimed in claim 9 (see page 1, paragraph, 0002), wherein the laundry detergent composition comprises water (carrier material) in the amount of 1 wt., % to 80 wt., % which is covered the claimed amount as claimed in claim 5 (see page 10, paragraph, 0102), wherein the laundry detergent composition also comprises surfactant system in the amounts from about 5% to about 50% by wt. as claimed in claim 7 (see page 3, paragraph, 0036). Lant et al. (US’ 162 A1) also teaches a laundry detergent composition free from cellulase as claimed in claim 8 (see page 14, Example 2), and wherein the laundry detergent composition also comprises stabilizer as claimed in claim 13 (see page 13, paragraph, 0134) and wherein 10 g to 300 g of the laundry detergent composition is dissolved or dispersed in a wash solution as claimed in claim 11 (see page 14, paragraph, 0142).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Lant et al. (US’ 162 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the detergent composition of Lausten et al. (WO’ 980 A2) by optimizing the amounts of detersive surfactants in the detergent composition as taught by Lant et al. (US’ 162 A1) in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these surfactants, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a detergent composition to have similar results to those claimed, absent unexpected result.
Regarding the limitation of claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laundry detergent composition in a laundry machine for several washes in order to clean the fabric materials, absent unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761